Wait Wall-E; a huge failure? Are you joking. That was one of Pixars best movies. I can't tell if you're being merely sarcastic or blasphemous. LOL!


'Look, it's really simple. To Bay and I think, to Spielberg to some extent, the Transformers are not characters.'

'That's how it goes. That's the movie incarnation. The TFs themselves, almost without exception, do not get to have complex motives, pasts, or inner lives. They are not "people" and thus, are assumed not to have these things.'

That's very well put. That's pretty much the reason why Bayformers are simply bad movies.

 

You may want to get your sarcasm detector fixed.

 

At first having both Transformers and Star Trek so close to my heart this is a tough decision. I love Transformers, I collect Transformers, and to some of my friends I talk about Transformers. Star Trek, I grew up watching it. I remember watching it with my father, who thought the communicators were a neat idea and how great it would be to be able to communicate with someone without finding a phone booth. Of course now he bitches every time some who is on their cell phones cuts him off in traffic. Getting back to the point. Both mean a lot to me with that said.
Star Trek reinvented the whole franchise and in a good way. I love how Spock looked like a young Spock and how Kirk did NOT look like a young Shatner. The way they built up the relationships and the characters were great. As others have stated they did not have a lot of time to build the characters but I think they did a great job. The bar scene was great. The interaction between Bones and Kirk was great. I look forward to seeing the sequel.
Transformers, the first was ok but I did not like the second one. I too found it difficult to tell who was who. Heck some of the decepticons in the background I STILL do not know who they are. The worst part is I could go back and find out but I don't care! Understand what I am saying, I am not putting the movie down I am just saying it's not my cup o tea. The forest scene was great. I loved the fight but once again, kinda hard at first to tell who was who. I like the old days where you recognized all the bots at first glance. I enjoyed both movies but like I said, I am really looking forward to a Star Trek sequel, Transformers 3....eh....

 

I really don't see how that'd even possible, even to an uninitiated viewer. Megatron has a very specific form, which none of the Protocons share. They're all thin and skeletal, while he's got huge tank tread feet, a barrel chest, and of course, the murder arm.

 

I, too would like an explanation for your opinion. In contrast, I felt that the writing was only a couple of notches below brilliant, and the story and script flowed well and made perfect sense to me. Also very good acting from most of the cast.

 

I totally agree. Star Trek was absolutely fantastic. I've seen it 4 times now and I cry like a baby during the opening sequence every single time. That is easily one of the best opening scenes I have ever seen in a big blockbuster movie. Right up there with X-Men 2.

 

I could maybe see being a bit let down with the villain not being fleshed out enough given how the tragic background really could have made for a great villain.

But considering you've got an entire crew to introduce I thought they did a very good job for a first film.

 

I don't know how much work they had to actually put in, as through pop-culture absorbtion, and parody, everybody already knows the original crew so well.

 

I enjoyed Star Trek more than I enjoyed ROTF, and I did like ROTF.

End of story.

 

Yes to both of you.

I thought Star Trek was way better than TF1 and TF2.

Star Trek was pure bliss for me. It made me think to myself: "If only I were born 200 years in the future..."

I anxiously await the sequel. For me, Star Trek and The Dark Knight are perfect films in every way...and I am damned critical and give faint praise. However, JJ got everything right in that film. Everything.

 

Well, I'm gonna copy and paste from other sources the thought and feeling that I am otherwise to tired or lazy to write myself.

However, if I could summarize Star Trek into 1 word, it would be: contrived.

First off, it appears to me that O & K tried really too hard to both reboot the franchise all new while also trying to throw all the existing fans that make up a significant ticket buying force a bone.

Or they didn't try hard enough. Either way, I personally conclude that they should have done 1 or the other rather than both. J.J. Abrams is trying to have his cake and eat it too. He clumsily and awkwardly brings everyone together for the new Enterprise crew (exactly how unlikely was it that Scotty would be on that one base on that one moon…) In some ways, the half-hearted attempt to maintain continuity with the time travel device is worse than just doing a straight reboot, no questions asked.

They try to play both sides with a singular plot device:
A Romulan captain of a mining ship, in the late 24th century, witnesses the destruction of Romulus. Infuriated, he blames Spock for failing to save the planet (and his wife and child). He attacks (old) Spock, falls through a black hole and ends up in the early 23rd century. As a result, the timeline is forever changed, because the first thing he does (almost) is kill George Kirk, James T. Kirk’s father, putting him (and Starfleet) on a different path.

Personally, I find that whole premise pretty darn weak.

Now, why were there so many changes in the timeline? Because the Narada blew up the Kelvin and Kirk's dad.

Yet, aside from Old Spock saying so, there is no explanation as to how the loss of the Kelvin is reason enough to explain all the changes. The Kelvin is not the 1st ship ever made; now was it the 1st ship to be in space combat; nor is it the 1st ship to be destroyed.

Never the less, Starfleet decides to bump up its technology so that the ships are more advanced, the transporters less advanced, and officers willing to proclaim "Wait! I know how to beam someone!!" But it looks like you better let the transporter beams warm up first longer than I take to warm up my car in the morning.

The biggest flaw of "Star Trek (2009)" is the plot. It is full of tropes like no other Trek movie before. Time travel, villains that strive to destroy Earth, a brand new Enterprise that is the only line of defense, etc., "Star Trek (2009)" has them all. The plot is a mess, even if we acknowledge that A) it is a reboot and B) some things work differently in the Star Trek universe anyway than in real life. The whole story is built on an endless chain of totally improbable coincidences, poised to get the TOS crew (Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura, Scotty, Sulu, Chekov) and only the TOS crew together on a ship named Enterprise in spite of the very different circumstances in which they meet. The first link in the chain is that the Narada is hurled back to almost exactly the place and time that Kirk would be born. The stupid climax of this development is when Scotty (exiled by his professor), Spock (dropped off by Nero to witness Vulcan's destruction) and Kirk (jettisoned in an escape pod by Spock) meet on the surface of Delta Vega, within a range of a few kilometers! This is just the most blatant example, but all of the movie's character relationships are forged in a similar fashion, starting with Kirk, in whose immediate vicinity the Enterprise is being built in this timeline. He encounters Uhura, also in Iowa, who turns out to be Spock's girl-friend three years later. Also, Spock programs the Kobayashi Maru test in which Kirk cheats. Why does it have to be him of all people? The case of Archer's beagle (Porthos VII?) that Scotty once beamed away is still a funny example (well, not funny for the dog as it seems). But the way that the same characters come together in a totally different timeline and that the old and the new timeline are tied together makes the Star Trek Universe look like a village.

Don’t get me wrong – I liked the movie enough to see it again, and I think it achieved its goal of reaching out to people who have never seen Star Trek before (or didn’t watch much of it.) I was actually surprised to see so many “wink wink, nudge nudge” moments in the film – references to other characters, catch phrases, moments, etc. When Spock gives the transwarp transport formula to Scotty, I half-way expected some reference to transparent aluminum (Star Trek IV).

Maybe that’s what bothered me the most – they clearly put some effort into lining this up with canon in minor ways that didn’t really matter.

Captain Pike decides to make a not-quite-graduate with 3 years in the academy First Officer. Really? And he becomes Captain of the newest ship in the fleet?

A 3 year non-graduated student captain of the newest (and remaining) ships in the fleet where a med student who kept giving Kirk the wrong drugs is now Chief Medical Officer and the Engineering Chief was found on a Vulcan moon and a communications officer with no experience yet just as rapidly promoted. But Spock's a dick.

Movie jumps the shark when Kirk crash lands on the ice planet/moon.
◦First, he plays Empire Strikes Back with the native wildlife (unnecessary).
◦Second, he just happens to crash within a few miles of Spock?
◦Exactly how close is this moon/planet to Vulcan, so that it appears huge in the sky of this world?
◦Spock is placed within walking distance of a Federation outpost, and is waiting for… ?
◦Scotty just happens to be stationed at this outpost?
◦Spock doesn’t go with Kirk because he doesn’t want to hurt the bonding experience for Kirk & Spock? Seriously?

I don't mid humor, but much of the humor in this film I could do without:
The computer unable to understand Chekov.

Sulu not taking the ship out of "park".

The Kobyashi Maru- the apple- everything was just plain silly. What was the clue that tipped Spock off to the fact that Kirk cheated? Surely, it was because a student found a way to win the "no win" scenareo and NOT THE BEHAVIOUR OF THE GUY IN THE CAPTAIN'S CHAIR". How astute! Vulcan logic at its best- way smarter than any human.

McCoy's incompetant drugging of Kirk.

Kirk's puffy hands.

Scotty beaming into the water tubes- possibly the worst and most out of place cheap laugh gag in the entire film.

The casting was o.k.. I'm on the fence about Chris Pine as Kirk, but leaning to keeping him... unlike my opinion of Quinto as Spock. Dump him- and Yelchin too. Keep Zoe as Uhura and tell Simon Pegg that he better get better.

And give Urban a trophy for pulling off McCoy. I liked Pike as well (name escapes me).

This film was flashy and whiz-bangy and I won't take that away. Also, the opening scenes set an outstanding tone that deserves its own round of applause.

I didn't mind the lense flares. I kinda liked them.

So, with all the time they spent writing this, this is the best that O & K could do? Seriously? A completely lifted plot from an old Star Trek book called 'Killing Time'? I feel that they turned out a better and deeper story for ROTF.

I wanted to like- love Star Trek. I really did. I watched it twice: the first to go and love, and the second to go see this movie that everyone was saying was so good.

In all honesty, I was more satisfied with Terminator Salvation than I was with Star Trek. (BTW- Yelchin does a better Reese than Chekov).

I have not bought the DVD- altho if someone gave it to me for Christmas, I'd take it. The movie was just o.k.

 

That's just hilarious lol.

 

Nice break down. Sucks, but true.

 

get off my internet!

 

I can see your point. Peters emo dance I think takes the cake. I think what you are looking for is what Disney/ Pixar movies do so well. They throw in clever humor and quick quips that get the job done while managing to not get in the way so to speak.

Interesting points you bring up as I never really paid it much thought but im glad you brought it up.

(and please excuse me for the multiple postings, I took a day off not even thinking this thread would go anywhere and you guys took it to the next level. I'm enjoying reading all you guys posts!)

 

I agree with your comments. All I want is to CARE about the transformers on the screen. They really need more interaction scenes between the Transformers themselves so we can see some character building. But like another poster said, Bay and Spielberg do not treat the Transformers as characters or people. Sad because I feel like they really missed an opportunity to endear these characters to us the fans. Now all we're left with is soulless robots with new designs. And people wonder why the designs are so strongly harped on....because these bots don't have anything else for us to relate to. No character, just designs on screen.

P.S. I guess some of the TF's have a distinct character, like the twins or Jetfire, but they are definitely the exception to the rule. But bare in mind, when any of these charactere die (which they did) nobody cares because no relationships are built up beforehand.

While I can see some of your points it seems that the majority of your concerns with Star Trek is that you find it highly "illogical" that the crew would meet up in that fashion? To that I can only say "truth is sometimes stranger than fiction". There are tons of examples of odd meetings in real life too numerous to name here. And of course i'm not talking about time travel.

Trust me, I've seen Star Trek 4 times now and I've done the "no way would the crew all meet up like that" dance with myself too. But I kept ignoring it because A) the movie was just set up so well B) the characters and their motivations were well done and C) J.J. Abrams artistic vision and scope for the movie was epic, awesome, and quite simply inspired me to want to boldy go where no man has gone before.

And I know there were a couple of times when you watched Star Trek you cracked a smile or two  

Also, even though we might disagree on the topic I wholeheartedly respect your opinion and welcome the exchange of info. (and that's not sarcasm)

 

Simon Pegg (as Tim Bisley in SPACED): "As sure as day follows night, as sure as eggs is eggs and as sure as every odd-numbered Star Trek movie is shit..."

-Ok let me just start off with the fact that I do not think the new Star Trek is a terrible movie, it's not even a bad movie. I just found it "OK" and there are some cool things (the opening is pretty tight). I went in really wanting to dig it but afterward was let down.

Also I'm not trying to convert anyone into not liking it. An explanation as to why some of us don't care for it that much was asked for, so let me break down my own personal reasons for feeling this way.

My main criticism of the film is its writing. I honestly don't find Orci and Kurtzman to be great writers (Transformers or otherwise). First off the entire film/universe is predicated on the very basic plot element that Spock was late. That's it? Really. Did he sleep in? The federation knew that the super nova was coming and would wipe out the home worlds of the Romulan Empire (and, potentially, the rest of the galaxy as well). So they send one ship, Spock's, and they aren't able to figure out when they need to get there? He's late. To quote from the Star Trek Wiki:

"However, the star exploded while he was en route, and Romulus was destroyed"

That's the explanation as written. Nothing else, I find that a bit flimsy. Spock was late (for some reason) and that starts off the chain of events. So then he uses the Red Matter to prevent further damage and this now for some other reason causes time travel. Time travel that affects the two ships time traveling to different times (also for some reason). Seriously the Red Matter is a bit of a deus ex machina, or at least a cheap plot device to use whenever for whatever. I mean a super nova + red matter = time travel, that's only like one step away from Futurama's super nova + metal in the microwave = time travel (and that's an intentional joke!).

I also have an issue in the gap in logic where Spock leaves Kirk on Delta Vega. Why would Spock leave another Star Flet officer on a barren snow cover planet and not follow protocol to put him in the brig? It's purely a contrived moment to serve the "getting Kirk to Spock" on Delta Vega, I found that to be somewhat poor writing. Once Kirk gets to Delta Vega he's chased down and then Obi Wan saves him from the Sandpeople, sorry, then Spock saves him from the Hengrauggi. Again a bit of a jump in plot faith that Kirk lands so close to Spock, it's a coincidence of epic proportions (or just average writing).

Now here's where we get to my biggest issue with the film. Trek has (on average) been a "smart" sci-fi series. A series where the main characters have to think their way out of complex problems more often then just fighting their way out. We get to this crucial point in the film, how will the crew get back together and stop Nero, and what happens? Spock gets used as the biggest "get out of plot" free card I've seen in some time. Spock (Spock Prime) just tells them what to do:

"Here Scotty, here's that theory you'll invent, I'll just tell you so you can get on the ship. Kirk, here's what you need to do to get your ship back and win the movie. Now go do it. I can't go tell my young self, don't want to create any paradoxes (oh but I'll show up later and tell Spock Lite how to live the rest of his life, cause what I told Kirk as more an "an act of faith" thing)."

Then we just watch the new guys go do the action-y stuff and win the film. I find that lame, really lame. The apex of the film's poor writing. Something only made worse when Orci and Kurtzman have Jetfire do pretty much the exact same thing towards the end of ROTF (Here's what you do Sam, wise old guys always know)!

It's not like Orci and Kurtzman became brilliant writers for this movie but worse with Transformers (and for the record I do like the TF films, flawed though they may be). Abrams film was more character based then Bays. That brings me to the the characterization in Trek. It's ok, that's it. Once again Orci and Kurtzman have a film were many of the main characters are based on pre-existing ones. Seriously Kirk's Kobayashi Maru scene is cool, but it was already pretty much written. Their version fills in the blanks a bit but it's more like a Trek script Mad Lib then an original character building moment in the film. They just have to hit the right notes of these guys. The film's main original guy, Nero is dull and poorly fleshed out (sort of like the people in Transformers, coincidence?).

Again, just so we're clear, I did not hate this film. I found it ok, but to say its "writing was only a couple of notches below brilliant" is not something I can get on board with. Orci and Kurtzman have written three films that I have seen thus far and while they get you from plot point A to plot point B I don't think they create dynamic/interesting original characters, nor do they write great plots. They write ok films based on ideas from other writers.

Really that's my main beef with New Trek. Abrams is a competent director. I neither love nor hate his style (a bit too much lens flair maybe). The actor that played Spock Lite I didn't particularity care for but honestly that may be more a result of how they wrote the role for him.

If anyone likes or even loves the new Trek, cool. I've stated some of the issues I had with the film (as per Poho's request to those who don't care for it as much). That's my opinion and I've backed it up with examples from the film itself. I keep seeing people talk about how "well it's written" or its "great characterization" but I have yet to see such statements be backed up with any examples beyond vague opinion.

 

I'm getting sleepy so I'll try to at least address some of the things you mentioned. I highlighted the points I want to get to in bold.

1. The opening is very tight, agreed

2. You mean Han Solo saves him from the Wampas. C'mon man don't blaspheme Star Wars like that   j/k I get your point. I really liked the little homage to Empire though.

3. Have the Star Trek movies really been that "smart" and thought out or are you talking about the TV series? I have to crack open the old DVD's now.

4. Yes, Nero needed a little more seasoning. They missed a golden opportunity to bring Nero to the "Wrath of Kahn" villain level. He wasn't charismatic enough for me and he was pretty much the only major gripe I had with the movie.

5. As far as examples of good characterization let's see...

-Spock getting picked on at school and then his Father explaining to him why he married his mother and what it means to be Vulcan. This not only gave diehard fans a little something to chew on but was a good setup for casual fans as well. And, the theme was echoed throughout the movie when Spock lost his mother and when Spock attacked Kirk like he did the vulcan school kids.

-What makes Kirk an ideal officer is that he can think on his feet and is best at improvisation although he can be a bit of a hot head (starting a brawl with 4 star fleet cadets). When Sulu had no idea how to take down the giant drilling machine Kirk stepped up. Kirks quick wit helped him grab the Romulans own gun. And he quickly disengaged the release hatch to save Scotty etc.

-Spock to Kirk: "I would site regulation but I know you would just choose to ignore it" A great line that rings true in all of Star Trek lore

I'll come up with some more for you tomorrow.

 

Well, I just watched Star Trek tonight, for the first time.

I've never really been a fan; I've seen episodes and films, both with moments here and there that I liked, but have never had any moments that really pulled me in, although I do appreciate the series for it's sci-fi "high road".

There's only one thing that bothered me about ST. Kirk happening to land on the same planet Spock Prime was on. That was TOOOO much of a stretch. I don't get the complaints about the crew coming together, this was to show how it occurred, so I don't get why anyone would take issue with it, other maybe than Scotty, I suppose that the one guy in the universe that can warp people onto moving ships is the one random guy Kirk comes across...yeah, ok, that's kinda weak in retrospect.

Anyway, those two things aside, I really loved it.

One thing was PERFECTLY clear, though.

These were the same guys that wrote both ROTF and ST, but in ROTF they had to also deal with Michael Bay coming in and forcing ideas on them...mainly his sense of humor/the Twins.

 

i see. but i disagree with you on many points. the only reason you think it's all so contrived is because you already have the precondition in your mind of the enterprise crew being together. the whole "oh what are the odds that they would meet so-and-so in such a place" thing doesn't really hold. if you forget that any other trek movie existed, why the hell couldn't they have met scotty on that snowy moon? they had to meet someone there. it happened to be montgomery scott.